Did the Protestant Reformation do anything good?

[mirandajb]

If you refer back to my reply to Guanophore you will realize I did not entirely agree with you.

Scott Hahn, etc are indeed great people and are the products of the protestant movement. And they left! This is my point.

God raised them to lead the others out of reformed thinking. This is the great thing that God has done: overturning what the reformation has done from the inside. But it needed to be overturned.

As for the increase in knowledge of the word of God, it came at a great price - schism, faulty theology and wrong exegesis.

The only thing that I am really thankful is that they sincerely love Christ.

Of course Scott Hahn and gang have left!! Please read the thread title again and stick to the point. You sound like a grammarian thus you should know better.
I still believe that the Catholic Church would not have seen the transformation, we see today if not for the Protestant Movement, mind bearing the havoc in the Catholic Church during and preceding that era. Time for a history lesson Ben.

God raised them to lead the others out of reformed thinking. This is the great thing that God has done: overturning what the reformation has done from the inside. But it needed to be overturned.

Spot on!
Why don’t you read the Old Testament and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal to you the reasons for the Kingdom being divided (sounds like our Church doesn’t it?). Please bear in mind that the Northern Kingdom (initiated by Solomon’s Commander Jeroboam - sounds like Martin Luther?) was wiped out whilst the Southern - Judah was perpetuated through our Saviour Jesus Christ (the lamp that will not pass out - promise made to King David). So, yes, the Catholic Church will prevail. Amen.

Joe Miranda

 

[benedictus2]

Really Ben, what are you here for anyway?

Here’s a recap.

Guano posted something to which I replied, referencing the nominalism of Luther which is very, very much germane to the thread.

After some discussion, she blasted me with that one. From out of nowhere.

So I asked her to prove this and guess what she can’t. Because you see, while she accuses me of perceiving things erroneously, she came up with that impression from perceiving erroneously. Otherwise, she would have been able to support her personal attacks.

Which is why I kept re-iterating, this is a discussion forum. Stick to logic, and reason. Otherwise, when you make those kinds of assumptions and moral value judgments about other people, you just prove that you just ain’t got the ability to hold your ground so you descend to this sort of personal insults.

As to your question, I don’t have to justify my reason for being in this forum. Visit my profile, peruse my posts and maybe you will get an idea of why I am in this forums.

But FYI, I have already told Guano that I am here to debate. Full stop. And you know what, if you don’t muddy the discussion with this sort of personal rubbish, the truth comes out.

She used to be able to do that. So I wondered, what could have brought out the claws?

It could have only come from my initial response to her post. So go back to that post, analyze that. There was nothing that indicates that I am unwilling to debate or I would not have been firing back rebuttals.

So I thought, perhaps it was because she had never heard of this tangent regarding the Reformation and she didn’t like the fact that I showed that her analogy regarding the 3 blind men was flawed. Now if that was what caused her to get on her moral high horse and charge, then it could only mean that she had gotten used to maybe being right all the time, and being proven wrong this time around was just extremely unpalatable.

There was a time when the only response I would give to her posts were “Bravo”, “Brilliant”, “Well said” “Great Post” with thumbs ups and clapping emoticons. Maybe she had gotten used to having only those and could not handle disagreement.

And because she could not come up with a rebuttal, she resorted to personal insults.

And she didn’t leave it at that. She kept piling it on. So in the end I have had enough of it and asked her what exactly is going on. I don’t think she has had an internal look as yet to come up with the answer to that one.

You cant visit the other thread she started, the to and fro is on that one. I have unsubscribed to it because this kind of petty attack is getting tiresome.

 

[benedictus2]

Of course Scott Hahn and gang have left!! Please read the thread title again and stick to the point. You sound like a grammarian thus you should know better.

Pray tell how have I diverged from the point? If you go back and read my responses that is precisely what I was doing until I was so rudely interrupted

I still believe that the Catholic Church would not have seen the transformation, we see today if not for the Protestant Movement, mind bearing the havoc in the Catholic Church during and preceding that era. Time for a history lesson Ben.

Ha!! Exactly what I have been saying all along - that this is your point!

Until someone else said you meant otherwise. And no I do not need to take a history lesson, it is your conclusions based on historical fact that is in error, not the historical fact. You might need some lessons on logic.

You are making the assumption that were it not for the protestant movement there would not be the proclamation of the word. Maybe you can explain that to your friend as she is under a different impression.

As I have said, such a conclusion is ludicrous.

As Alice Von Hildebrand would say: there was no Protestant Reformation , there was only Protestant Deformation

Spot on!
Why don’t you read the Old Testament and ask the Holy Spirit to reveal to you the reasons for the Kingdom being divided (sounds like our Church doesn’t it?). Please bear in mind that the Northern Kingdom (initiated by Solomon’s Commander Jeroboam - sounds like Martin Luther?) was wiped out whilst the Southern - Judah was perpetuated through our Saviour Jesus Christ (the lamp that will not pass out - promise made to King David). So, yes, the Catholic Church will prevail. Amen.

And exactly how does that negate my assessment of your original post.

Your reply just confirms that I have not made a “wrong assumption” about what you meant.

 

[guanophore]

What struck a nerve, Bene, was the namecalling. But I did miss your response to the blind men and the elephant, so I will respond to it.

In the story no one actually grasped any part of the truth at all. Their conclusion were totally erroneous. Even if their individual concllusions were put together, one cannot come up with a correct version of the thing - that it is an elephant.

You were right, I did not agree with your evaluation. On the contrary, you have reinforced my point that it is like the blind men and the elephant. Each of them actually DOES grasp a part of the Truth. That is precisely the problem. They encounter a part of the whole, and conclued that what they experienced was the completeness. This is what happens in Protestantism. All of the ecclesial communities have a part of the whole, and they argue amongst themselves, rejecting one another’s understanding of their part. Even if they could put all the parts together, they would still not grasp the whole, because the fullness of it is outside of their grasp, being separated from the Apostolic Tradition as they are.

Their conclusion was not “totally erroneous”, but limited, because they each grasped a sliver of the truth.

 

[guanophore]

You are making the assumption that were it not for the protestant movement there would not be the proclamation of the word. Maybe you can explain that to your friend as she is under a different impression.

As I have said, such a conclusion is ludicrous.

Not ludicrious at all, but quite consistent with Apostolic Teaching.

1 Cor 11:17-19
18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

This principle has been active in the Church since the beginning. And no, it does not mean that the work of the Church (preaching, teaching, making disciples) would not have happened otherwise, but when there are divisions an opportunity arise for those who are genuine to stand out. Rampant rebellion caused the council of Trent, planned but delayed for decades, to coalesce and address the issues at hand.

History has also demonstrated that persecution is what causes the Church to burn more hotly and to grow. She is nourished by the blood of the martyrs, and there were many during the Reformation.

 

[benedictus2]

Not ludicrious at all, but quite consistent with Apostolic Teaching.

1 Cor 11:17-19
18 For, in the first place, when you assemble as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you; and I partly believe it, 19 for there must be factions among you in order that those who are genuine among you may be recognized.

This principle has been active in the Church since the beginning. And no, it does not mean that the work of the Church (preaching, teaching, making disciples) would not have happened otherwise, but when there are divisions an opportunity arise for those who are genuine to stand out. Rampant rebellion caused the council of Trent, planned but delayed for decades, to coalesce and address the issues at hand.

History has also demonstrated that persecution is what causes the Church to burn more hotly and to grow. She is nourished by the blood of the martyrs, and there were many during the Reformation.

That God can bring good out of evil, that is an agreed thing among us so let us put that aside.

Joes’ contention was basically that “if it were not for the Protestant movement there would not have been the proclamation of the word.”

What you have written above, in no way supports this tenet but only affirms that God can bring good out of bad things.

Basically, what Joe is saying is: take a way the reformation (if the reformation had not happened) then the Word would not have been proclaimed to all these millions of people!

Do you believe that to be a true statement? Do you believe that if the deformation had not happened millions of people would not have heard about Christ, about Scripture, about His Church?

Can you see now why I said that the Church was not actually lying on the couch, feet up on the coffee table watching TV?

If the Protestant reformation had not happened, the Word would still have been proclaimed, the Church would have continued on because Christ gave the promise that the gates of hell will not prevail against her.

Tbe Church would have carried her mission to make disciples of all nations.

As a matter of fact, the worst thing about Protestantism is they are not exactly just proclaiming the Word to those who do not know the Word, they are, by their lies, taking people out of Christ’s Church.

They go to Catholic countries and convince Catholics with their cleverly crafted lies.

Within the moverment, it is acceptable to switch from Baptist, to Methodist, CofE or even Orthodox - but heaven forbid that they should become Catholics!

And yes, the Church does grow out of the blood of the martyrs but it is totally ludicrous to conclude that the Gospel would not be proclaimed were it not for the reformation. To conclude so is to conclude that God willed this evil. Joe may not think that but that would only be because he has not really thought through the implications of that statement.

 

[benedictus2]

What struck a nerve, Bene, was the namecalling. But I did miss your response to the blind men and the elephant, so I will respond to it.

You were right, I did not agree with your evaluation. On the contrary, you have reinforced my point that it is like the blind men and the elephant. Each of them actually DOES grasp a part of the Truth. That is precisely the problem. They encounter a part of the whole, and conclued that what they experienced was the completeness. This is what happens in Protestantism. All of the ecclesial communities have a part of the whole, and they argue amongst themselves, rejecting one another’s understanding of their part. Even if they could put all the parts together, they would still not grasp the whole, because the fullness of it is outside of their grasp, being separated from the Apostolic Tradition as they are.

Their conclusion was not “totally erroneous”, but limited, because they each grasped a sliver of the truth.

The blind men’s conclusions were all “totally erroneous”. The elephant was neither like a fan nor wall, nor sword.

My point was not whether protestants grasp some truth but rather your application of the analogy.

None of the blind men made a factual statement about the elephant at all.

Unlike the Protestants who do grasp some truth about the faith.

 

[benedictus2]

What struck a nerve, Bene, was the namecalling.

Ok, tell me exactly where I was guilty of this and I will apologize.

Prior to your piling those insults on me, when did I call you names?

My memory may probably not be the best but I don’t think I even did that even AFTER you have continued with your sly remarks.

Even when people are being obnoxious, I don’t tell them off or report them to the moderator unless they are of the variety who post one liners with a link to some questionable site.

There is no need to police anyone. One thing I have noticed in my time here at CAF is that when they run out of rebuttals, they just disappear.

I believe that if you stick to the truth then you are on a winner. The truth has power if you just let it.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t know that any info or anything can be specifically proven that hasn’t already came out in 500-years. However, the principle of cause and effect was surely in play. Can it be specifically stated that Christianity would have grown as it did even if imperfectly? I just am not convinced of this

I do believe we have to view the mind it attracts “protest”. There is a attitude there which is inconsistant with Christianity, because it is a behavior issue, and its negative. However, those who cannot such as Luther, sit down and listen, then they must react in a different manner. So the behavior is first turned inward the I Me and Myself issue, then because isn’t understood it cannot be corrected, then the issue of acting off the feelings is seen. So the built stored inward emotion caused the explostion. The behavior pattern is not viewed, its followed by man with the same traits. Look at Calvin and his behavior? Its the same issue today.

How bold is it when you as a man can actually believe you are right and all the scholars of the CC are wrong thus God? However, they were wrong selling indulgences.

They are wrong “today” favoring those who can proposition large sums of money for an annulment? Are they wrong with the strict policy of Baptism where I couldn’t bring 5,6,and 7 year old children in without the painstaken hurdle of parents who are Catholic, and Catholic Godparents etc. I had no time for that, thus the children went across the street to the Episcopalian Church. Only God knows where they ended up. Why would I have to struggle with my own faith and conscious to help children I don’t know at all, but came in contact with through my career? Its an error and an issue. I don’t think, I am absolutely 100% positive those children needed to baptized.

So then can we say we are correct at all times? I do believe its impossible, if we can’t objectively view issues proposed with an open mind, then they can’t be corrected. And there are issues that need correction today. So you can rest assure they existed with the reformation, and will exist in another 500-years. Objectively hearing this, isn’t this the same reason why the Protestant church in all their clamor continues to fracture and muliply? They don’t want to listen to each other either, however that same built in behavior as I discussed above cause’s a very different effect. It causes another church, it did from the start and will continue to do so. We see protestants convert not only because they argree with the CCC, but because they see how futile that issue they have is. They may not see the issue, but they see the fustration. If the only issue was the CCC, then that could be copied and repoduced. and then built upon by others? Its deeper than that, the behavior is tied to it. In fact I’m postitive they are inseperable.

The we are perfect attitude is the same attitude I reject immediatly with the EO, for that is folly and doesn’t exist. Its a bold lie projected, so their it is. We must approach everything all the time knowing we were created perfect, however we are impecfect in the seperation of the mind through ego, or we couldn’t have free-will. We would be robots, that is where the imperfection is. It existed in the garden with Adam and Eve in their behavior. It exists through the entire Bible and is written about through the entire context from Genisis to Revelation. Geez, if the discourse of “All is Vanity” can’t be seen, I know how clearer the prophet could have been. He see’s this and extensively writes on it to the point of redundance, why??? Was he not trying to tell us something?

Matter of fact I am positive I could demonstrate in success, that evil is “promoted” through our own behavior issues which we are incapible of correcting without others. So it is accepted, then cooperated with, and thus promoted, and projected. I cannot say this is all satan is capible of doing, I do not now that. But I do know this is a fact.

Peace

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)